I was discouraged to see The Post recommending Colorado voters not partake in the opportunity to send a message to Washington, D.C., that big money in politics has gotten out of hand. The Post suggests simply electing people to Congress to address the issue. How do they suppose voters are to learn about candidates willing to “take on the issue” over the volume of mail, TV and radio commercials and robocalls for the candidates backed by the big money? Sending a political message is our civic duty, not something that can be discarded because it does not carry the force of law. The Post agrees Amendment 65 is well-intentioned, and it is a step in the right direction. Why tell voters not to make any progress just because this step will not solve all our problems at once?

Peg Perl, Denver

This letter was published in the Oct. 20 edition.

Your editorial objection to Amendment 65 because it isn’t perfect and might have unintended consequences is rather thin. This is because the perfect is never achieved in our complex laws and society and we are too polarized. This means the bar is set very low in order to keep everyone somewhat satisfied. Consensus has a low bar. Amendment 65 does suggest that there be limits, with ambiguity. Amendment 65 is the best we thought could pass. Some state (Colorado?) needs to be a leader. We all have free speech, but only those with big money can do TV ads or negative messages. Vote “yes” on 65.

Joel Leventhal, Lakewood

This letter was published in the Oct. 20 edition.

For information on how to send a letter to the editor, click here. Follow DPLetters on Twitter to receive updates about new letters to the editor when they’re posted.

Amendment 65 is useless. It requests Colorado’s congressional delegation introduce a US constitutional amendment to overturn the Supremme Court’s “Citizens United” decision. Vpters can request all sorts of things of their conressional delegation. It doesn’t mean they’ll act on it. Colorado’s congressional delegation can introduce constitutional amendments until the sun goes nova. It doesn’t mean Congress will act on them.
It’s worse than useless because it puts silly feel-goodism into the Colorado constitution. Our state constitution is cluttered as it is.
We’ve been chasing the chimera of “keeping money out of politics” for 40 years, and what has it gained us? A system where vast amounts of money are being spent by organizations accountable to no one.
Let’s put the money back into the political parties and their candidates, who have some degree of accountability.
And, forget about restricting money. Money will always find a way to be spent. Instead, anyone can give to a party or candidate any amount, and it must all be reported.

thor

Not to mention that one can find out what a candidate believes by going to their web site. If one is unhappy with an incumbent,write a letter or call them or send an email.

Anonymous

Yep. And ultimately, support and vote for someone else.

Anonymous

all you can do at this point

Anonymous

On this issue, peterpi is correct.

Anonymous

Can I say Amen?

Anonymous

You betcha!

Anonymous

I agree, Pete. I think 65 is probably unconstitutional too. I don’t think we can bind future Senators and Representatives to a certain course of action.

Anonymous

Good point.
So, not only is it impractical, it’s unenforceable.

Anonymous

Agree, but what’s the consequences of voting it in if it’s useless? And also, what if it fails? Is that a sign of endorsement of big money in politics? Should of never been created.

Anonymous

Why add more uselessness to the Colorado constitution?

Anonymous

I’m all for unlimited political contributions. Not quite sure what reporting it accomplishes. Frankly, I’ve never cared one whit who donates to who and how much.

Anonymous

While the “idea” behind Amendment 65 may “seem” worthy…..is it really the place of an Amendment to the State Constitution to direct “policy agendas” in Washington DC?

Where would such “ideology”….and utter nonsense…..end?

Would 2014 see perhaps 100 or 200 “Amendments” to the Colorado Constitution that “direct” Colorado’s Representatives in Washington DC to “try” to (1) abolish abortion (2) pass an Amendment to the US Constitution that defines what a “marriage” is (3) decree that some wooded or other natural area should be a (a) national forest (b) national wilderness (c) national monument (d) national park (4) balance the federal budget (5) put so-and-so’s picture on a postage stamp (6) eliminate printing up any more dollar bills (7) make 09/11 a national holiday (8) expand and make Medicare/caid a Federal Universal Health Care Program for ALL citizens regardless of age (9) amend the US Constitution so that the Military of the United States can be used ON OUR borders to SECURE our borders (10) pass a Personhood Amendment at the federal level (11) increase our nuclear capacity (12) reduce our nuclear capacity (13) increase federal funding of PBS/NPR (14) eliminate federal funding of PBS/NPR (15) increase oil production in the US (16) increase off-shore oil drilling (17) opens our National Parks, Forests, Wildernesses, Monuments to more oil exploration (18) establish an Amendment to the US Constitution that officially makes “In God We Trust” our nation’s Official and Consitutional US Motto (19) make the Pledge, including the words, “under God,” an official part of the Constitution via the Amendment process (21)…….well, hopefully, most people get the idea.

“Using” the “amendment process” to the Colorado State Constitution to “direct” what our Elected State Officials in Congress should…..”try”….to do……is utter nonsense because it opens up a whole can of worms that should be left sealed and unopened.

Vote NO on Amendment 65……and stop the ridiculous idea that we can “amend the state constitution” to try to tell our representatives what they should “try” to do.

Anonymous

I agree.
A letter-writing campaign would accomplish the same goal, IMHO, and would leave the state constitution alone.

Anonymous

You know you just agreed with Robtf, don’t you?
I’d better check my Bible to see if that’s one of the Seven Seals. 😉

Anonymous

I think it’s at least two of them, LOL

Anonymous

Bi-Partisanship at last.

ember8214

Bet Peggy’s Empty Chair candidate is losing is the reason she likes 65. If the Empty Chair were ahead her letter would not be written as money pouring into his coffers would be just fine, even if it were from foreign sources.

Anonymous

You have to understand the Denver Post IS about big money and politics, as a conservative owned and run newspaper.

Anonymous

Really? “Big money,” huh?

That must be why they’re losing money every year, along with the newspaper industry as a whole. No, there isn’t much “big money” anywhere in newspapers right now.

Justice Kennedy, in writing the majority opinion in Citizens
United, quoted from a prior dissenting opinion by Justice William O. Douglas,
concurred in by Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice Hugo Black, that pretty
much nailed it for me, since Douglas was such an unabashed supporter of the 1st
Amendment: “Under our Constitution it is We The People who are sovereign.
The people have the final say. The legislators are their spokesmen. The people
determine through their votes the destiny of the nation. It is therefore
important–vitally important–that all channels of communications be open to
them during every election, that no point of view be restrained or barred, and
that the people have access to the views of every group in the community.”
United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U.S. 567, 593 (1957) (opinion of
Douglas, J., joined by Warren, C. J., and Black, J.). My primary fear is that
such an amendment to the US Constitution as proposed by Amendment 65 could lead
to laws forbidding participation in unions and non-profit groups (such as the
NRA, Planned Parenthood, Posada Pueblo and the ACLU), that are not in favor
with whomever is in power. One might say that would never happen. IMHO, our
Constitution is designed for such laws never to happen, or be enforced if they
should happen to pass some legislature, and we ought not tinker with the
Constitution in this manner. So, I am voting against the adoption of proposed
Amendment 65 to the Colorado Constitution.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.